On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Brad P. Crochet <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> In this case, the noun is actually 'baremetal provision state'. The > 'action' is the states themselves. It doesn't fit exactly, but seems > to at least be somewhat natural. resource == provision state (add baremetal if namespacing is required) action == set value == --state x|y|z provision state set --state active|deleted|provide <id> (note: I'd rethink those state names and see if they can feel more consistent) > Let's have a quick poll, which would you prefer and why: > > > > 1. openstack baremetal provision state --provide UUID > > 2. openstack baremetal provision --provide UUID > > 3. openstack baremetal provide UUID > > 4. openstack baremetal set provision state --provide UUID > > 5. openstack baremetal set state --provide UUID > > 6. openstack baremetal action --provide UUID > > I think my vote would be for #4 (or #5 if 'state' alone is enough to > convey the intent). I would love to get an OSC person's view on that > one. (Question already asked in another post) state by itself is not very meaningful. if 'baremetal state' is meaningful to a user that might be OK. But what thing has that state? A node? I don't know what 'provision state' also refers to, a node? a port? dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev